Responding To Accusations Of Hate Speech

[wenglund]

Average has a specific meaning. You are intentionally using an inaccurate meaning to distort income growth. IE. If one person earns an extra dollar per day and the next person earns an extra thousand dollars per day they both had an increase in income. Relatively speaking there is a relative decline for the person making just an extra one dollar a day.

 

The averages I referenced are per QUITILE, and not income in general. The averages are reported by the government. I provided links to the government stats so that people could view the stats for themselve and not take my word for it. So, if there is an alleged inaccurate meaning that supposedly distorts income growth, take that up with the government. Don't falsely or ironically  accuse me of intentional distortion.

 

Speaking of playing word games and distortions, here you are attempting to describe a dollar a day increase as a "relative decline."  

 

But, then, these days up is down.

 

Evidently, you don't understand the difference between decline in income and expanding disparity in income. Perhaps you should review your macroeconomic notes. LOL

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

The averages I referenced are per QUITILE, and not income in general. The averages are reported by the government. I provided links to the government stats so that people could view the stats for themselve and not take my word for it. So, if there is an alleged inaccurate meaning that supposedly distorts income growth, take that up with the government. Don't falsely or ironically  accuse me of intentional distortion.

 

Speaking of playing word games and distortions, here you are attempting to describe a dollar a day increase as a "relative decline."

 

But, then, these days up is down.

 

Evidently, you don't understand the difference between decline in income and expanding disparity in income. Perhaps you should review your macroeconomic notes. LOL

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

You know Wade, your arguments would be a little more convincing if you could somehow see your way clear to avoid the snide comments. 

[wenglund]

You know Wade, your arguments would be a little more convincing if you could somehow see your way clear to avoid the snide comments. 

 

I highly doubt it. Bringing things back on topic, I have found that convincing people with opposing views has much less to do with the way things are said, and far more to do with whether the opponents are humble or not. Not only will humble opponents be more open to convincing, but they likely wouldn't consider my comments to be snide (or Oaks; comments as "hate speech"), but rather good-natured ribing (or as in Oaks' case, profound wisdom), and this even if they don't end up agreeing.

 

In short, your attention is focused away from where it ought and where it may be most deserved and do the most good.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

In short, your attention is focused away from where it ought and where it may be most deserved and do the most good.

 

I believe that's the point. Including snide and derisive comments distracts from the content of the post, such that one's point is often missed. In short, snide comments gain nothing and can potentially lose the whole argument. Not a smart rhetorical choice.

[thesometimesaint]

The averages I referenced are per QUITILE, and not income in general. The averages are reported by the government. I provided links to the government stats so that people could view the stats for themselve and not take my word for it. So, if there is an alleged inaccurate meaning that supposedly distorts income growth, take that up with the government. Don't falsely or ironically  accuse me of intentional distortion.

 

Speaking of playing word games and distortions, here you are attempting to describe a dollar a day increase as a "relative decline."

 

But, then, these days up is down.

 

Evidently, you don't understand the difference between decline in income and expanding disparity in income. Perhaps you should review your macroeconomic notes. LOL

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://acivilamericandebate.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/income-gains-per-quintile1.gif&imgrefurl=http://acivilamericandebate.com/2011/04/10/the-30-year-growth-of-income-inequality/&h=331&w=545&sz=18&tbnid=PDWiuzLIxcFohM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=148&zoom=1&usg=__UYw3QUCa5puIIWUWU3QCTkASczw=&docid=qRcwVEPLm35A9M&sa=X&ei=gaGDUp7MNYbliAKVgIHIDg&ved=0CEYQ9QEwBA

[thesometimesaint]

I highly doubt it. Bringing things back on topic, I have found that convincing people with opposing views has much less to do with the way things are said, and far more to do with whether the opponents are humble or not. Not only will humble opponents be more open to convincing, but they likely wouldn't consider my comments to be snide (or Oaks; comments as "hate speech"), but rather good-natured ribing (or as in Oaks' case, profound wisdom), and this even if they don't end up agreeing.

 

In short, your attention is focused away from where it ought and where it may be most deserved and do the most good.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

So if I disagree with you it is me that has to humble himself to agree with you? Goose meet Gander.

[Daniel2]

[ste name=Rivers" post="1209314518" timestamp="1383468875]In Elder Oaks' interview on the Mormon Channel, he says that he will speak what God want him to speak whether it is unpopular or not. Stirring the pot is part of the prophet's job.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

I don't see anything where Elder Oaks is advocating acting unjustly to anyone.

[Stone holm]

[ste name=Rivers" post="1209314518" timestamp="1383468875]In Elder Oaks' interview on the Mormon Channel, he says that he will speak what God want him to speak whether it is unpopular or not. Stirring the pot is part of the prophet's job.

From this former member's perspective, the pot - stirring has been frustrating and often - times painful due to ongoing religiously-based familial rejection of myself and boyfriends. However, as discussed previously, it definitely seems evident that the actions of LDS leaders, especially Elder Oaks, have ultimately helped advanced the cause of lgbt equality at a far more accelerated rate than it may have been, without it. Case in point, the timeline in Hawaii, where the battle over same sex-marriage first began in the US, and where marriage equality was just passed into law:

truggle From the ’80s to Today

 

Two thoughts come to mind:

Jung's "that which we resist persists," and

King's "the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice."

Daniel

 

[EllenMaksoud]

 

Doing positive things for the gay community helps.  Like this.

 

 

TrevorLIVE Will Honor Mormon Adam White, Toyota

 

I was particularly turned off by the approach of some people in the gay community during a recent ruction two lesbian women had with a wedding cake maker here. The cake maker had refused to make a lesbian wedding cake, as is her right, since she finds SSM unacceptable. Well as you might expect the Cake Maker finds herself in violation of anti-discrimination laws.  The street talk here in Portland is that the gay community "targeted" her, knowing that there were other cake folk who would have been happy to do it. One comment in a news article I read about it was, "accept us or we will hurt you".

 

There is a group of people here in Portland that is specifically targeting the LDS Church, and I was recruited to join it since at first glance people make assumptions. In my opinion, their actions are so repulsive that I am nauseated, and it seems to me that they are dancing on the trap door to hell. If the gay political action pac wants equal rights ... but no, they want special rights. As to gay mormons, I believe that Heavenly Father and the Prophet will work things out and I find "in your face" activism repulsive.

 

It seems to me that the actual attacks against the church have declined since Mitt Romney campaigned and I think that is because more people now know what the church is about.

[thesometimesaint]

I was particularly turned off by the approach of some people in the gay community during a recent ruction two lesbian women had with a wedding cake maker here. The cake maker had refused to make a lesbian wedding cake, as is her right, since she finds SSM unacceptable. Well as you might expect the Cake Maker finds herself in violation of anti-discrimination laws.  The street talk here in Portland is that the gay community "targeted" her, knowing that there were other cake folk who would have been happy to do it. One comment in a news article I read about it was, "accept us or we will hurt you".

 

There is a group of people here in Portland that is specifically targeting the LDS Church, and I was recruited to join it since at first glance people make assumptions. In my opinion, their actions are so repulsive that I am nauseated, and it seems to me that they are dancing on the trap door to hell. If the gay political action pac wants equal rights ... but no, they want special rights. As to gay mormons, I believe that Heavenly Father and the Prophet will work things out and I find "in your face" activism repulsive.

 

It seems to me that the actual attacks against the church have declined since Mitt Romney campaigned and I think that is because more people now know what the church is about.

 

We have to be very careful here. I doubt you'd be very happy if you were told to take your business elsewhere because of your prior Muslim associations.

See lunch counter demonstrations.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lunch+counter+demonstrations.&client=firefox-a&hs=YQS&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=rcs&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=z8aHUs3AF4PDigL68IBo&ved=0CDsQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=568

[EllenMaksoud]

We have to be very careful here. I doubt you'd be very happy if you were told to take your business elsewhere because of your prior Muslim associations.

See lunch counter demonstrations.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lunch+counter+demonstrations.&client=firefox-a&hs=YQS&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=rcs&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=z8aHUs3AF4PDigL68IBo&ved=0CDsQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=568

I am not against equal rights. Having been Muslim, I see no race. And, I have already been told that my past Muslim associations, and continuing ones are holding me back. I see Muslims as an un-tapped reserve of Investigators.   And, despite the curse of Hagar, I think many will "come to Christ". I know a few here in Portland who are now Mormon.

 

As to gay rights, "Equal Rights" is fine. I just don't like special rights.  I just look forward to a time when we stay out of the way of Heavenly Father; when those who love God will act like it and not be so judgmental. As to church policy, I am quite supportive of the Prophet determining our direction. And, I have spoken privately with certain people, and after having done that, have even more faith that this issue will be resolved the way it should.

 

There is the easy path and that is to follow the crowd. It is more difficult to search ones heart and seek the mind of God, and then follow what he tells us.

[Stone holm]

I am not against equal rights. Having been Muslim, I see no race. And, I have already been told that my past Muslim associations, and continuing ones are holding me back. I see Muslims as an un-tapped reserve of Investigators.   And, despite the curse of Hagar, I think many will "come to Christ". I know a few here in Portland who are now Mormon.

 

As to gay rights, "Equal Rights" is fine. I just don't like special rights.  I just look forward to a time when we stay out of the way of Heavenly Father; when those who love God will act like it and not be so judgmental. As to church policy, I am quite supportive of the Prophet determining our direction. And, I have spoken privately with certain people, and after having done that, have even more faith that this issue will be resolved the way it should.

 

There is the easy path and that is to follow the crowd. It is more difficult to search ones heart and seek the mind of God, and then follow what he tells us.

 

Personally, if Mormons were invited to the back of the bus or a different lunch counter it might actually be invigorating...then we wouldn't have to make up victimhood, but could deal with the real thing.  Everytime I or my family have encountered real dscrimination against us as Mormons it has not played out very well for the person doing the discrimination, that is why it is such bad politics for us to play the role of discriminator in the political forum, it just tends to backfire on you.

[thesometimesaint]

I am not against equal rights. Having been Muslim, I see no race. And, I have already been told that my past Muslim associations, and continuing ones are holding me back. I see Muslims as an un-tapped reserve of Investigators.   And, despite the curse of Hagar, I think many will "come to Christ". I know a few here in Portland who are now Mormon.

 

As to gay rights, "Equal Rights" is fine. I just don't like special rights.  I just look forward to a time when we stay out of the way of Heavenly Father; when those who love God will act like it and not be so judgmental. As to church policy, I am quite supportive of the Prophet determining our direction. And, I have spoken privately with certain people, and after having done that, have even more faith that this issue will be resolved the way it should.

 

There is the easy path and that is to follow the crowd. It is more difficult to search ones heart and seek the mind of God, and then follow what he tells us.

 

You can't be for equal rights for some.

 

According to our EV friends we're a non-Christian brainwashed violent cult. I doubt you'd appreciate them using the law to keep you from enjoying your civil rights.

 

We LDS are to proselytize the world, but we don't target specific religions for that proselytizing.

 

What special rights are those? The right to loving, caring relationship with the person of their choice?

 

There is never any excuse to treat anyone badly regardless of what we think of their lifestyle. It is doubly wrong to do it in the name of the law.

 

I have no problem with following the dictates of my own conscience, and allowing all men to do likewise.

Edited November 16, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[EllenMaksoud]

Personally, if Mormons were invited to the back of the bus or a different lunch counter it might actually be invigorating...then we wouldn't have to make up victimhood, but could deal with the real thing.  Everytime I or my family have encountered real dscrimination against us as Mormons it has not played out very well for the person doing the discrimination, that is why it is such bad politics for us to play the role of discriminator in the political forum, it just tends to backfire on you.

It gets a little frightening sometimes when I encounter Muslims that take issue with my now being Mormon. In some parts of the world they are supposed to kill you, but that does not seem to be much of an issue here in the US. And, I know Muslims here in my area that have converted to the church, and it does not seem so dangerous to them.  The most hateful opposition I have seen is from Evangelical Christians of a certain denomination. And it is difficult to not laugh at them, because I know their game and their statements about Mormons are often so ludicrous.  However, we must keep our connection with the Holy Spirit because we do not know if he has softened hearts or not.

 

We must remember that Christianity outside of Mormonism is under a lot of pressure after being involved in some really hateful and destructive practices in the past including hating Mormons. When I speak to them about the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and how the Mormons were systematically deprived of those rights, it is interesting to see the wave of confusion cross their faces at times.

[Stone holm]

You can't be for equal rights for some.

 

According to our EV friends we're a non-Christian brainwashed violent cult. I doubt you'd appreciate them using the law to keep you from enjoying your civil rights.

 

We LDS are to proselytize the world, but we don't target specific religions for that proselytizing.

 

What special rights are those? The right to loving, caring relationship with the person of their choice?

 

There is never any excuse to treat anyone badly regardless of what we think of their lifestyle. It is doubly wrong to do it in the name of the law.

 

I have no problem with following the dictates of my own conscience, and allowing all men to do likewise.

You sure about that targeting bit?

[EllenMaksoud]

You can't be for equal rights for some.

 

According to our EV friends we're a non-Christian brainwashed violent cult. I doubt you'd appreciate them using the law to keep you from enjoying your civil rights.

 

We LDS are to proselytize the world, but we don't target specific religions for that proselytizing.

 

What special rights are those? The right to loving, caring relationship with the person of their choice?

 

There is never any excuse to treat anyone badly regardless of what we think of their lifestyle. It is doubly wrong to do it in the name of the law.

 

I have no problem with following the dictates of my own conscience, and allowing all men to do likewise.

Well, maybe I am not for equal rights for all. I try.

[Rob Osborn]

equal rights for gay people is a contradiction in moral law. Hate speech for declaring moral truth- again a contradiction.

we are not far from declaring what is right to be wrong and what is wrong to be right.

[Stone holm]

equal rights for gay people is a contradiction in moral law. Hate speech for declaring moral truth- again a contradiction.we are not far from declaring what is right to be wrong and what is wrong to be right.

How so? Moral law supports discrimination as to secular rights?

[thesometimesaint]

You sure about that targeting bit?

 

Yep. We don't say here is Catholicism. We'll specifically go after their members. However if a individual Catholic wants to listen to, maybe even convert . They are entitled to do so.  In some countries we don't actively proselytize(Israel), and in some countries it is a death sentence to convert. So we obviously don't formally go there, and proselytize. We even don't proselytize anyone whom will have a reasonable expectation of returning to one of those countries.

[thesometimesaint]

Well, maybe I am not for equal rights for all. I try.

 

The key is in keep trying.

[thesometimesaint]

equal rights for gay people is a contradiction in moral law. Hate speech for declaring moral truth- again a contradiction.

we are not far from declaring what is right to be wrong and what is wrong to be right.

 

So if you do something I find immoral I have the right to use the law against you? You'd better hope and pray I'm more generous than you. 

Again for those that missed it. Here is the legal definition of hate speech.

 

http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/

 

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.

[Stone holm]

So if you do something I find immoral I have the right to use the law against you? You'd better hope and pray I'm more generous than you. 

Again for those that missed it. Here is the legal definition of hate speech.

 

http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/

 

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.

So is reckless rhetoric hate speech?

[thesometimesaint]

So is reckless rhetoric hate speech?

 

Not necessarily, but it is reckless.

[Danzo]

So if you do something I find immoral I have the right to use the law against you? You'd better hope and pray I'm more generous than you. 

Again for those that missed it. Here is the legal definition of hate speech.

 

 If you do something that I (and a majority of citizens) find immoral and have created a law to that effect, then I (and the people of the state/country that I live in) have the right to use the law against you.

 

It happens every day.

 

Have you ever read a criminal incitement?

 

for example The people of the state of California vs danzo